Very nice shot to show the capabilities of the lens, BigPix.
But you forgot to say, at which focal length the image was taken! (I assume 10mm?)
Well, everybody who was wondering what my reviews are worth can have a look over at the updated pages of Photozone to see the results of a professional test of my copy. Phew, that coincides nicely with my "impressions"...

Here are some images with the Sigma 10-20 mm all at 10-mm..... one of my favorite lens... I also have the Sigma 12-24 lens but this does not get a look in anymore...... could be different if I get a D3 as the 12-24 is a full frame lens

cropped to a pano format as there was way too much sky...... and they are birds not dust bunnies

You've convinced me! I'm deffinatly going to buy this lens now.. (i just hope i get a good copy! )
but, i was wondering, would it be a good idea to buy this lens kit at amazon or just buy the lens by itself here

it seems kind of wierd... the kit costs less than the plain old lens. maybe im being jipped ? the only thing in the kit i would use would be the filters (and of course the warranty) becuase I plan on buying a macro lens so i could use the tripod if i wanted but the macro lenses most likely wouldnt fit onto the lens I want to get.

I saw your post also in the Canon-thread. LahLahSr. said over there:
"However, Sigmas quality assurance on this product is at times "iffy" and there are several of our fellow camlabbers who have had to send it off to Sigma for adjustments - in some rare cases even twice!

This would suggest that it is perhaps a good idea to buy this lens from a camera-shop somewhat in your vicinity as opposed to buying it online. This way you might be able to slap it on your camera and try a few shots with it first, to see if it's properly adjusted/sharp. It seems that the issue is with it auto-focus that may sometimes be a little off."

That means that some lenses of this type are good and some aren´t. He adviced you to buy in a local store where you can find out about the quality. Amazon is a without doubt a good internetsaler (I buy many books from them), but you can´t say what the quality will be of the lens you get!
So save you the troubles (on) beforehand. This lens is the one I will buy in the next future too. But I will buy it at a (local) photoshop which isn´t much more expensive as Amazon cs.!

how does this lens perform in lower light conditions? i'm debating between this one and the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. Any feedback?

Well, the focal length is so very short that you can handhold even under dim conditions. But f/2.8 is 2 stops more than f/5.6 so the Tokina is much better in this respect. Plus it has better dof-control - if you want this on an ultra-wide

I have been using Sigma lens for a few weeks now and I must say that even an old, empty jam jar stuck to the front of your camera body would give you better optical quality than this lens (perhaps just a slight overstatement ). I have tested it and I think my sample is as good as they come but to me, IQ is just total crap. Even my cheapo Canon 1.8 50mm is sharper than this super-dupa-wide-zoom-wonder. I know it is unfair to compare prime with a zoom but considering the difference in price I feel justified in saying what I just did. Anyway, if anyone wants to make purchasing decision based on small web pictures published here or anywhere else, then my advice is: don't. Have a look at 100% crops and they will tell you real story.

I have been using Sigma lens for a few weeks now and I must say that even an old, empty jam jar stuck to the front of your camera body would give you better optical quality than this lens (perhaps just a slight overstatement ). I have tested it and I think my sample is as good as they come but to me, IQ is just total crap. Even my cheapo Canon 1.8 50mm is sharper than this super-dupa-wide-zoom-wonder. I know it is unfair to compare prime with a zoom but considering the difference in price I feel justified in saying what I just did. Anyway, if anyone wants to make purchasing decision based on small web pictures published here or anywhere else, then my advice is: don't. Have a look at 100% crops and they will tell you real story.

I've got to disagree with you. Perhaps you got a bad sample but I've had some great results from the Sigma 10-20mm.

Well csnaus, I think your comments are borderline:
1. Most 50mm/f1.8 primes belong to the sharpest lenses you can buy!
2. The "empty jam jar" and "total cr*p" references in your post don't qualify as serious comments in my book.
3. There are enough 100% crops and large-size originals in my review to do a lot of pixel peeping.
I'm sorry if you got a bad copy (I'm always saying that you need to watch out for negative sample deviations, when buying a Sigma), but the same thing happened to me (see my report from the first lens). I just gave it back and purchased a good copy later, which was then professionally tested at photozone. Klaus Schroiff's verdict: "...showed a very good performance during the tests especially in terms of resolution."

Well Thomas,
If you haven't noticed, look again, there is a smiley in my remark about jam jar". No, it was not supposed to be a "serious remark" (your book or anyone else's book). And BTW, I have mentioned that comparing primes with zooms might not be very fair, have you missed that one too?
In general, just loosen up, chill out and relax mate my post is not a reflection on your wonderful testing work, it's just my opinion based on many hundreds of pix I took with this lens.

I've got to disagree with you. Perhaps you got a bad sample but I've had some great results from the Sigma 10-20mm....

Hi Welly,
I agree, IQ of your pix is quite acceptable but looking at EXIF it kind of confirms my observations: the lens is acceptable at f8 to f11 but beyond it is just a jam jar. We do use wide lenses for landscapes and we do want to take landscapes at f22, don't we?